Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

oromoron: ...nor do I have delusions of grandeur.

OMG.. that made me laugh out loud when I read it.

...they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur.

As is the case for most Atheists.

I would just about put money on it that your political leanings skew decidedly left. Am I wrong?

 

[thebrucebeat]

But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not Congress making a law... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
Jefferson is not infallible.

LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich!

"Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment.

You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Sure you can. No doubt about it.
But it has been upheld for 67 years.
Right now the tide is against you.
Your argument has been made by your betters. It has lost continuously.

 

[thebrucebeat]

oromoron: ...nor do I have delusions of grandeur.

OMG.. that made me laugh out loud when I read it.

...they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur.

As is the case for most Atheists.

I would just about put money on it that your political leanings skew decidedly left. Am I wrong?

You think the majority of atheists are maniacal dictators?
What are millions of people "dictators" of?
Slipped a gear with that one, didn't you?

 

[koshergrl]

Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.

How do you come to this?

 

[thanatos144]

God didn't say to kill 50 million unborn in the USA for eugenics....No that would be secularists. Even Muslim radicals are not as adept at mass murder as atheists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.

 

[koshergrl]

As were Pol Pot and Mao....

 

[thebrucebeat]

Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.

As were Pol Pot and Mao....

None of them cared a whit about atheism.
What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
All totalitarian states are based on that.
Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.

 

[Boss]

Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.

How do you come to this?

Yeah koshergrl, how do you come to this? It's not possible for him to be any more of a moron than he already is.

You think the majority of atheists are maniacal dictators?

I think most of them, at least the ones represented here, would love nothing more than to be little left-wing authoritarian dictators who tell us what to do, how to act, what to believe, and what is acceptable and not.

But it has been upheld for 67 years.

Wow, did you think my argument was that it hadn't been?

 

[koshergrl]

Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.

As were Pol Pot and Mao....

None of them cared a whit about atheism.
What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
All totalitarian states are based on that.
Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.

They were atheists.

The competing concepts they sought to eliminate were religious ones, because religion advised their subjects that what they were doing was evil.

I love to watch atheists wriggle and squirm and try to minimalize the truth..which is that openly atheist regimes are the most efficiently brutal and murderous regimes the world has ever known.

 

[orogenicman]

Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.

Even if true (which is a dubious claim, at best) I know of no one in the modern American atheist community who sees any of them (or ever saw them) as role models, least of all me. Again, your attempt to vilify atheists in this manner is nothing new but is a perfect definition of cowardice. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it makes you appear.

 

[Boss]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.

 

[orogenicman]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility...

Actually, that perfectly describes the religious right particularly the part about starving the poor.

The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility.

Right. That would explain why fewer atheists are in jail, on welfare, and more have modest to high paying jobs compared to many uneducated, redneck, right wing, Jesus-loving bubbas in the south. In fact, since you brought it up, Mitch McConnell's state, my state, a red state, is amongst the poorest in the country, and has one of the highest rates of welfare in the country. Which is why the movement is on in earnest to "ditch Mitch".

 

[koshergrl]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility...

Actually, that perfectly describes the religious right particularly the part about starving the poor.

The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility.

Right. That would explain why fewer atheists are in jail, on welfare, and more have modest to high paying jobs compared to many uneducated, redneck, right wing, Jesus-loving bubbas in the south. In fact, since you brought it up, Mitch McConnell's state, my state, a red state, is amongst the poorest in the country, and has one of the highest rates of welfare in the country. Which is why the movement is on in earnest to "ditch Mitch".

Haha, that's what we call "Ass Facts". Facts that you pull from your ass, but otherwise have no basis in reality.

 

[koshergrl]

"
"There are some statistics that atheists love to repeat. One of them is this: “About 8-16% of America’s population are atheists, but only 0.21% of the prison population are.”
"This page is apparently their source for that. It gives the numbers for prison inmates, and their reported religious groupings, on 5 March 1997. (I wonder why do no atheist ever mention a more recent study? Is this particular 11-year old study the one with results that best match their agenda?)
"But wait a minute. These numbers apparently also say that 19,7% of the prisoners population chose not to answer this question, or was perhaps not asked, or perhaps just ticked a box named “other religious view” without naming their view in it. Now, the prisoners that were not asked are probably not much different from anyone else. We do not know how many of those were numbered in the sample.
"But the prisoners who chose not to answer? It make perfect sense that an atheist will be less likely to honestly answer that question. (It may indirectly affect his chances for parole, for instance.) And with a tick box for “Catholic” or “Muslim”, but none for atheist, it is likely that some atheists will be among those who just tick “other” without filling in the word atheist.
"The people who chose not to answer could, fairly speaking, include anything from absolutely no atheists at all to all atheists, without exception. Atheists could, if these statistics were accurate, anything between 0,21% and 19,95% of the prison population in the USA. Since many (probably the mayority of) people who do not believe in God or the supernatural- fail to identify themselves with the label of “atheist”, you could assume their true number will be higher"

Lies, damned lies and atheists in prison | Looking around and trying to understand

 

[thebrucebeat]

None of them cared a whit about atheism.

Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God. We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.

You just stated what I did. They eliminated competing ideas. They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.
All that mattered was the state.
The red part of your post states this pretty well.
The rest is silly agenda screed. Not worth responding to.

 

[Boss]

They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.

You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

Part of achieving absolute power and control was removing people from their religious underpinnings. Atheism is the belief in no God. What part of this are you having trouble understanding, dimwit?

 

[thebrucebeat]

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.

As were Pol Pot and Mao....

None of them cared a whit about atheism.
What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
All totalitarian states are based on that.
Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.

They were atheists.

The competing concepts they sought to eliminate were religious ones, because religion advised their subjects that what they were doing was evil.

I love to watch atheists wriggle and squirm and try to minimalize the truth..which is that openly atheist regimes are the most efficiently brutal and murderous regimes the world has ever known.

They also eliminated intellectuals, poets, artists. It wasn't just religions. It was anyone that had the temerity to challenge the status quo. The religious were one of those groups, but no more interesting than anyone else that would dare to challenge them.
These were despotic regimes, not atheist per se. That was purely incidental.

 

[thebrucebeat]

They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.

You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

Part of achieving absolute power and control was removing people from their religious underpinnings. Atheism is the belief in no God. What part of this are you having trouble understanding, dimwit?

I'm not having any problem understanding that they were eliminating competing ideas, wherever they stemmed from. Atheism is not the belief in no god. It is the lack of belief in any god.
Do you think they exclusively targeted people of faith?
If you do, you are not very well familiarized with this history.
Don't forget to always include an invective or I won't know it is your post.